Paul Deussen

The contentious reaction to Liddell’s satirical article about Black genocide has provided us with a unique opportunity to reconsider our strategy as a revolutionary movement.

I usually enjoy Liddell’s intelligent writing, but I agree with critics that he failed in this case to promote our cause. The exact meaning of his article was not easily indiscernible, and he may have frightened away visitors without offering anything substantial to compensate for this loss. Truly, there must be a better way to electrify our audience without sending newcomers running to the hills.

Those who spoke in Liddell’s defense argued that it would be a mistake to abandon our beliefs in order to attract members of the leftist herd. Liddell himself has urged us not to let the PC mob dictate our parameters.  I agree with these cautionary assessments, but if we are to be an effective vanguard rather than just another White Nationalist website, then we must strive to present our ideas in ways that can appeal to potential recruits who are still straddling the fence. Many of us once sat there. Have you asked yourself lately what brought you down from that fence and guided you to where you are today?

For the majority of us, I suspect our journey began with an intuitive recognition that something was not quite right with the world . . . and likely something was deeply wrong with it.  

Indeed, our first unconscious step towards the alternative Right was probably living though experiences that bore no resemble to the multicultural paradise promised to us by the prophets of liberalism. These “moments of awakening” compelled us to question the egalitarian orthodoxy and seek answers outside the mainstream sources of information.

Challenging orthodoxy has always been a dangerous affair. The alternative Right often complains about the character assassinations, censorship, and name-calling we experience writing about race and culture, but if we take a step back for a moment and consider the persecution suffered by those who challenged the religious orthodoxy, our struggle seems far less severe. Burnings at the stake, beatings in the street, and public executions were but a few of the tactics employed by the Church to silence those who questioned the unquestionable. Perhaps then, it would behoove us to take a closer look at the strategy of those who successfully challenged—and eventually defeated—religious orthodoxy under these life-threatening conditions. We may dislike much about the world that arose in the aftermath of the Enlightenment, but we can still admire and learn from the strategy employed by its early partisans.

A good place to begin would be Baruch Spinoza (1632-1677), who is considered by many political theorists to be the father of modern liberal democracy. Surrounded by controversy throughout much of his life, Spinoza was one of the most radical philosophers of the modern period. He possessed a remarkable talent for provoking people to question the unquestionable, but his willingness to challenge all forms of religious particularism would eventually result in his excommunication from the Jewish community in 1656. Such a punishment seemed entirely justified in the eyes of 19^th-century Jewish philosophers like Hermann Cohen. The 20th-century political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973) came to Spinoza’s defense, however, in his Spinoza’s Critique of Religion, in which he wrote that much of the hostile condemnation directed towards Spinoza was caused by a misunderstanding of his thought and strategy. Strauss believed that in a world dominated by the Church, attacking Judaism was a shrewd way for Spinoza to lay siege to Christianity.

This article will briefly outline Spinoza’s philosophy and evaluate Cohen’s moral critique of Spinoza from the Straussian perspective. What will ultimately emerge from this investigation is a broader view of philosophy at the highest level, where the means of delivery are as important as the message being delivered. Such a lesson should be invaluable to the Alternative Right, which desires to challenge the dominant orthodoxy of egalitarianism, anti-racism, and political correctness.

If subterfuge is the name of the game, then Spinoza was truly one its masters.

During the 2010 HL Mencken conference, Richard Spencer expressed his doubts that Republicans would ever be able to capture the White vote because White women will continue to be swayed by what is fashionable. I assume he was speaking in terms of social influence, but there might also be a biological component to support his position—not enough White women are having babies.

In Annie Paul’s book Origins, she discusses the work of UCLA anthropologist Dan Fessler whose “research suggests that while pregnant, women become more xenophobic: more distrustful of strangers and more favorable disposed toward members of their own group.”

Fessler acknowledges that pregnant women feel more vulnerable precisely because they are more vulnerable, but he explains the ethnocentric result with a politically correct argument:

The reasons we experience these reactions today is that the response protected our ancestors…These emotions allowed our forbears to survive long enough to produce offspring, who in turn passed the same sensitivities on to us. We often respond to today’s world with yesterday’s adaptations.

In other words, biologically induced feelings of in-group loyalty are antiquated and no longer serve any real purpose. This conclusion is unsurprising from a contemporary anthropologist, but Fessler’s research is revealing. If pregnant women are more likely to have elevated levels of in-group consciousness, then it makes sense why so many White women are persuaded to vote for what is fashionable—they are not having babies. The vulnerability of pregnancy might open their eyes, if only for a brief period of time, to the out-group threat of leftwing political candidates who prioritize minority interests. Unfortunately, ethnocentrism among white women will continue to decrease as we further progress into the Anti-Fertilization Age of career women, Facebook singles, and feminist lesbians.